GeForce FX Launch

The GeForce FX, nVidia’s new graphics accelerator, was released to press last week. Reviews came in and I was severely disappointed. The card has 16gb/s bandwidth vs the Radeon 9700 Pro’s 19.8. The FX has 128 bit memory structure vs Radeon 9700 Pro. Though it’s about a 175mhz faster clock speed, that doesn’t seem to be a good thing. The cooling system (very interesting looking) is over 60 decibels loud and can be heard from the other room. Plus, it reaches over 150 F with that cooling system which takes up an extra PCI slot below the AGP. In benchmark tests, the FX was better than the 9700 Pro during normal situations but at the higher res (1600x1200) it suffered and the 9700 Pro was still better at AA and ansiotrophic filtering. For $400, it’s not much better than the 9700 Pro and is much louder… ugh.

Read a very good review at one of my favorite sites; Tom’s Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/index.html

I don’t know where you got your information. But what i saw was that that the FX was about 50% faster running quake3 and about 60% faster running UT2k3.

Also, it is only 175mhz faster, but because of the DDR ram operates 350mhz faster, thats a nice jump.

No, the FX card isn’t Revolutionary, but it is the best card out there right now.

First point; it isn’t “out there” now… it’s only been released to the press.

And no, look at the below benchmarks for UT2003… the performance increase was much too slight to be significant. The flyby in UT2003 showed the FX was better but the actual botmatch showed a much lesser lead with actual PLAYERS in the game.

UT2003:
Flyby:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-08.html#unreal_tournament_2003_flyby
Botmatch:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-09.html

As for Quake III, the game is somewhat outdated in my standards… the fps in that is mainly driven by processor speed as it’s a game low on polygons and textures.

At tomshardware download the mp3s comparing the 9700 Pro and the FX’s sound production… the FX was so freakin loud. I see how it can drive people nuts when trying to play a game during anything that’s suspensefulf.

So when I compare getting a new $400 FX or a $330 9700 Pro, I see the 9700 is quieter, cheaper, and does better with FSAA and ansiotrophic filtering.

read the review at anandtech for a totally different view on things then Toms.

But, I spend minimal time worrying about which $300+ video card I can’t afford :wink:

I’m typing this as I read the anandtech review…

Hm, Tom’s Hardware used a AMD 2700+ setup on the new Asus A7N8X versuses a 3.06HT P4 at Anandtech.

It mentions that the cooling system is loud and that the card slows itself down in 2d mode so that you aren’t annoyed. However, if you think about this and listen to the mp3s they provided, it’s LOUD when you game, which is when you need the card the most. If I cared about 2d performance, I’d just stick with this 32mb DDR ATI Radeon 7200.

Hm… the FX did worse on every test but one vs the 9700 Pro in UT2003 w/out AA or AF. It’s nice that fill rate was 30% better than the 9700 Pro but why care if you’ll get less fps?

FX did better in Serious Sam, but again, with a small percentage (9%) average, which seems low for a new graphics card that was supposed to be the ‘dawn of cinematic computing’. I remember when the 9700 Pro came out in early September and it completely blew away the TI4600.

Hm, the FX’s AA and AF aren’t better than the 9700’s but it does take up less sys performance.

On every AMD processor with a 266mhz FSB, anandtech guys did a UT2003 flyby and then posted up the data in a graph… the FX line never was above that of the 9700 pros… “The interesting thing is that the GeForce FX never overtakes the Radeon 9700 Pro, it consistently falls behind by 4 - 6%.”

blah blah blah from me…

Anyways, the review didn’t have a ‘totally different view on things’… it told me pretty much what I knew and didn’t give more insight. However, it does seem that the FX does better on a Pentium based machine so that may influence my opinion about it as I’ll get a free 2.4ghz machine in mid march. Darn 1.5ghz!

Oh, this quote from anandtech sums up the whole situation… and how the FX is disappointing:
“A card that is several months late, that is able to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro by 10% at best but in most cases manages to fall behind by a factor much greater than that.”

true gamers dont care about noise, and if u do, invest in dynamat
:smiley:

john scans

Facing Up - The $400 GeForce FX should have enough grunt.

“If you’re tired of the way graphics card technology seems to leapfrog every six months or so, we’re here to warn you there seems to be no relief in sight.”

“Last year ATI took the lead in the graphics cad wars with its awesome Radeon 9700 Pro, a $400 card that had every game screaming at super performance…Not to be outdone. Santa Clara-based Nvidia recently announced that it’s poised to regain the throne with its latest car, the GeForce FX…The GeForce FX will ship with 128mb of memory, and while we’ve yet to get exact prices, rumor has it around $400. Since we haven’t actually played with the card ourselves, we can’t say how well it will perform…but Nvidia is claiming their card is 40% faster than the ATI card in the yet-to-be-released Doom III…”

If I wasnt’ lazy I would scan and post the picture in this magazine.

:yikes:

Old news… BTW, i personally like tom’s hardware, but it seems to me, from talking to a lot of people on other sites, that they are somewhat biased… again, im going to wait and look @ other reviews… not that i can afford it :stuck_out_tongue: It’s just fun knowing :wink:

I was dissapointed with it. It is too loud and I don’t see much more headroom because of the heat issue. Nvidia dropped the ball on this one.

“However, we have learned that ATI’s next generation R350 chip which will compete with the Geforce FX is now in mass production, and will definitely be in retail stores in April.”

I am sorry but I think the FX will do great no matter what you say and what was said earlier sound doesn’t matter but I think it will be alot quieter then the test ones that people have ran benchmarks with also we have to factor in FX is for Direct X 9 and it will rule also it doesn’t even have the final drivers done so I say leave Nvidia alone till is comes out and then we can see who rules the graphics world.

Well that is my 5 cent

Lol, you aren’t keeping up with nVidia. Numerous sources have said that nVidia will be cancelling the FX launch. Those who’ve preordered will get a card. You can find references at shacknews.com

"So things havent been looking so great for NVidia recently, after sitting at the top for quite a while with the GeForce line, they were passed up last year by the folks at ATI with their Radeon 9700 cards. NVidia didnt seem too worried with their NV30 card on the way but then they started running into problem after problem and the date kept slipping further and further back. They ended up doing a ‘paper launch’ last year in mid-November for the card in hopes of taking a bit of the attention away from ATI. Then, a bit over 2 months later they handed out review cards to the hardware sites where the card got panned for the most part. Now here we are closing in on mid-February without any GeForceFX cards on shelves still, and then this hits, the GeForceFX Ultra retail release has been canned. Doh!

the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra will never make it to retail. Those of you that PreBuy the cards will still get an Ultra model with the FX Flow cooling unit. Those who don’t will have the opportunity to get the non-Ultra version (400/800) off the retail shelves for a price of US$300.00.

To compound things a bit more, word from the ATI camp is that their next cards based on the R350 chips are already on the production line in significant numbers. What’s this mean? It means yay for market competition! I cant wait to see what NVidia does next later this year. "

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/24906/

Dunno if that’s up to date enough (2/8), but I did just go to www.bestbuy.com and noticed that the FX 5800 Ultra is not available anymore…

Also, the nearest DirectX 9 game won’t be out for at least 6 more months.

*Originally posted by monsieurcoffee *
**Lol, you aren’t keeping up with nVidia. Numerous sources have said that nVidia will be canceling the FX launch. **

All I will say is until Nvidia says its over then I will go with it you never know

Come on NVIDIA

just have to say this “It’s not over to the fat lady sings”

And if it truly is over they have reasons maybe even some way better to release you never know what Nvidia is up to out there in Santa Clara.

nVidia Sux0rz now. W00t ATI :stuck_out_tongue:

The Nvidia FX logo was just added to the Alienware website this week…

http://www.alienware.com/main/images/mce_top_left2.jpg

Maybe it’s not dead.

i’m going to laugh at the next person who buys a GeForce FX. So hard.

Im perfectly happy with my Radeon 9700 Pro. Anyone who has one knows what I’m talking about. Im not about to spend 400 bucks to see a 8% improvement. Does anyone really think you can notice an 8% difference?

Cory

Cory

u hop your upgrades if you have a 9700pro now i would wait at least a year maybe more till i upgrade

That is very strange that the GeForce FX logo is up at Alienware.com and says ‘Now Available’. However, what’s more odd is that it’s NOT available on any of their current line of computers.

This is kinda like the Radeon 9700 Pro on the Mac G4s… they were announced being available at ATI and apple.com before you could select them while customizing your computers.

Well time to make my announcement the FX lives

check it out and you all know that you want one :cool:

" GeForce FX: The Way It’s Meant to Be Played " ---- NVIDIA

And it launchs next month with the great list of other company’s launching with Nvidia to make sure that the fx is on any platform you choose and even if you have a laptop you can get the go series for that.

The Fact Page:

Desktop:

Models: GeForce FX 5800 Ultra, 5800, 5600 Ultra, 5600, 5200 Ultra, and 5200

Laptop:

Models: GeForce FX Go5600 and Go5200